Jump to content

salman

Basic Members
  • Content count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About salman

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  1. BISMILLAH No offense Ali Zaki, I guess your life has never exposed you to Messianic Muslims like me before. By saying "I'm always amazed by Evangelical CHRISTIANS such as yourself who think we are so "unintelligent" (I wanted to use a different word) that we would actually take the time to read such shameless and vacuous propoganda." No offense but Don't Judge me otherwise you will be Judged. Jesus was rejected in his time so I'm not surprised if the same happens to his followers. You said "Of course some of us may read it for entertainment and amusement... ", Who is this "us"? I see if your not gonna take me seriously then maybe I should not waste my time. Actually I guess this will be my last post. You will come to know me soon and will get the opportunity of being exposed to me outisde this website medium - inshallah with Allah's grace - once I start my Ministry later on in my life. I still have a LONG LONG way to go. As a promise, I won't change my first name Salman. In that way you'll know I wasn't an "EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN". However I do promise of taking my arguments to a whole new level. If my beliefs are false then may Allah guide me, Salman P.S - for 3:55 , Shakir interpreted "And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. " for 61:14, Shakir interpreted "O you who believe! be helpers (in the cause) of Allah, as~ Isa son of Marium said to (his) disciples: Who are my helpers in the cause of Allah? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the cause) of Allah. So a party of the children of Israel believed and another party disbelieved; then We aided those who believed against their enemy, and they became uppermost." A Muslim may wish to argue that these verses refer to Muhammad and the Muslims as those who truly believe in Christ and dominate till the Resurrection Day. This explanation fails to resolve the issue. The passages do not say that Christ's followers would only prevail from the time of Muhammad's advent, but from the time that Christ was taken to God and unto the Day of Resurrection.
  2. Bismillah, Okay Brother Ali Zaki I see your point. You may now close this thread for good. I'll start another one later pertaining to a different topic. Sister Oldsword81.....I'm happy to hear that your a convert to Islam. I still believe you can be a muslim and still believe in christ's atonement. I guess my views are more of a Messianic Muslim, http://www.isaislam.org/ I would like to leave you with the words of Quran Translator (M.H.Shakir) - whose translation most shias refer to - of Ayat 5:117 SHAKIR: I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things. May Allah bless you all, Salman P.S. - Guess who said those words according to the Quran?
  3. Salaam Brothers & Sisters, Mind you, I don't say the bible is 100% authentic. I've said this many a time. It's more like a History book. Sister Oldsword81....I had already come across this site (the true religion) in the past. I'm looking for scholorly converts to the ithna'a ashari sect. There are many muslims who have converted to christiandom too... http://www.muslimjourneytohope.com/ http://bibleandquran.org/ http://www.the-good-way.com/ http://www.injil.org/ http://www.islamreview.com/ http://www.aboutisa.com/ www.isaalmasih.net http://www.isaislam.org/ ***.org.uk/Testimonies/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conve...to_Christianity plus many jews out there that have accepted Jesus as the messiah.... for e.g. http://www.sidroth.org Let me know if you need more resources... With prayers for your success and well being, Salman P.S - Having converts from one faith to another in no big deal.....is it?
  4. BISMILLAH Salaam Sister Oldsowrd81, This post is dedicated especially for you. You said "sorry, i dont have time to go through every single post as yours are not the only ones i read. i do admit i glanced through the beginning posts bc of lack of time. but inshallah I will try to go back. you'll have to ask my husband to give me more time to read! i doubt that will happen!! i'm sorry if my responses are not good enough for you and if you don't want me to write i will stop. I thought i would just help a brother out." Do me a favour, read ALL of my posts. It's okay if you reply once a month, but atleast I won't have to repeat my arguments. Regarding the Sin issue just read my last post fully and completely and the message I left for brother "fyst" to undertand what bothers me about this sin/fault/whatever you wanna call it. You said "I honestly do not have the answer to this, and I know someone who has been studying tafsir for a very long time;" Don't worry oldsword81, I've been involved in comparative religion for over six years now. I've tried out most of the tafsirs of sunni & shia. As per my argument on the compilation of the quran just read all of my posts. You said "again, they were not a threat at the time, so why not?" Hello, these Muslims thought that Christ was NOT crucified and Mary had nothing to do with divinity?!?! You said "why did not every person who followed Jesus' teachings believed in his resurrection as a way to salvation? there were so many different sects of Christianity. why wasn't there just one?" After Mohammed's death we had shia'at-ul-ali and shia'at-ul-abu bakr......this split later on grew. Look what I said..."Did the disciples corrupt Jesus' message or Allah bewitched them as punishment? Ponder on 5:111-113 and 61:14 and focus on tafsir of these verses..." you replied "Jesus' message was corrupted. A lot of the things that are in Christianity wasn't even what Jesus said. I was Catholic and I never understood where so many aspects of the religion came from bc i never read them in teh Bible." I agree with you, they changed the sabbath which is why I don't agree with the catholic church. To me this is just one of the fulfillment of the prophecies in Revelations. Remember the beast of the Sea and the Dragon that fell to earth and what followed? BTW, have you read the "Cathecism of the Catholic Church"? It's pretty neat. However most of it's rules are made by men. This is one of the major sources of deviation in all sects and Religions. I am a shi'ite, but not presently. I spent considerable amount of years on the study of my faith's religion. It still seems shaky to me. However I still believe that Ali had the best claim to Successorship. However I do advise you to study the cause of differences between ithna ashari's and bohri's and Ismaili's (Aga Khan). Then you'll see what I see. You said "No, on the contrary, I know what the Gospel was/is, and that is why I don't follow it. The Bible teaches the opposite because it is not the Word of God. If the Quran came down as the exact same thing as teh Bible, people would have thought Mohammad just copied. This to me, that there are differences, shows that God wanted us to know the Truth. To not follow what some random men decided for me to follow." Read the books of Pseudepigraphy. http://www.pseudepigrapha.com You'll see some of the exact quotations from books Mohammed is referring to. Compare the message. His message also has strikingly exact similarities with what is found in the book of Yasna of the Zorastrians. Compare the quotations of these books with that of the Quran. you said "Because I have had grown up Catholic, and I have went to CCD and have read the Bible on my own volition, I have come to see the human errors and the human innovations in the religion. This is my belief and I feel Allah SWT guided me directly to Him by way of His WORDS...the Holy Quran. NOthing can beat it. Nothing." Your obviously being emotional. It's one of the first phases of being unshackled. I know, I went threw it. Remember "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water". Let me describe it to you metaphorically. Take an orange & wrap sheets of paper around it. Each time you get unshackled, the wrapping comes off. This continues until your left with orange itself and think your work is done. However alot of people forget one thing. You have to peel of the orange too....and there you have Jesus and the Gospel. I would like to leave you with some words of advice, Consider the MSS'. John Rylan written in 90 AD, present available MSS is about 130AD Bodmer Papyrus written in 90 AD, present available MSS is about 150-200AD Chester Beatty written in 60 AD, present available MSS is about 80-200AD Codex Vaticanus written in 60-90 AD, present available MSS is about 325AD Codex Sinaiticus written in 60-90 AD, present available MSS is about 350AD NOTE: All before Mohammed's time. Ceasar wrote in 50 BC, his earliest copies are of 900 AD Plato wrote in 350 BC, his earliest copies are of 900 AD Aristotle wrote in 300 BC, his earliest copies are of 1100 AD Thucydides wrote in 400 BC, his earliest copies are of 900 AD Herodotus wrote in 400 BC, his earliest copies are of 900 AD Sophocies wrote in 400 BC, his earliest copies are of 1000 AD Tacitus wrote in 100 AD, his earliest copies are of 1100 AD Pliny wrote in 100 AD, his earliest copies are of 850 AD Consider the time span and hence; you'll see my point. To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no other documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament. With continuing success on your Journey with Islam, Salman
  5. BISMILLAH May Allah's blessings and mercy be upon you all, Areef Hamdi......I'm surprised you still keep me in mind, I thought I wasn't too "muslim" enough for you. Unfortunately there is a proxy firewall here in the middle east which is why I can't seem to view them. That's the problem here in the middle east. Your restricted from visiting sites. www.aaiil.org is a famous Ahmedi site. When I'm back in Canada I'll read them. However after I read something new I choose not to argue over it. Rather I'll ponder and meet up with Ahmedi Scholors so they can elucidate me on the matter pertaining to our discussion. You see it's not about me trying to refute you, but rather it's up to each one us to continue on our inward journey and eradicate our ignorance the sameway I mentioned about the illegality of the Sanhedrin meeting at night in the Talmud (read the 2nd page of this thread - I posted the source in the Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin). But no offense...I have fatwas from Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Saafi stating Jesus' miracles were physical. Since you like conforming with Fatwa's of Mujathid's for e.g. Ayatollah Khaameni's of not addressing god as a Heavenly Father you'll agree with Sistani's and Saafi's of Jesus' miracles being physical. After I've read your material I'll consult with ALL the grand Ayatollah's offices too including key Sunni Mufti's just to know their response and then try to make sense out of it all. We're being open-minded aren't we? Oldsword81..... You said "I stand by this being an example for everyone else...not the Prophet himself." Your entitled to your own opinion. For Moses' Sin, Read 28:15-22 Also what do you think of his impatience with Khizr? As per David's sin/mistake/fault...etc. Read 38:24-26 Remember David only listened to one of the brother's story. Note: Not the other brother's too!! He should have listened to both before passing his edict in 38:24 As per Solomon, read 38:32-36 Ponder over "And he said: Lo! I have preferred the good things (of the world) to the remembrance of my Lord; till they were taken out of sight behind the curtain." Why do you think the Lord then placed a "Jasad" on his throne? As per Adam, YUSUFALI: They said: "Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost." PICKTHAL: They said: Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If thou forgive us not and have not mercy on us, surely we are of the lost! SHAKIR: They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers. I think it's crystal clear they wronged themselves thanks to satan!! you said "In that context, everyone knew that Imam Ali was referring to the Bible. That's it... you made it sound as if it was something that we now don't know that the Gospels were referred to...we know that." you said "It's not that the entire Bible is completely corrupted. The problem with the Bible is that it is not the word of God; especially concerning the NT, which is a bunch of letters and other papers written by men; men who didn't even know Jesus . So with that, there will always be doubt that the book has not been changed. The overall message of believing in God is of course in there.... this is what's important and why we should 'refer' to it... but bc of the human hands we will not 'follow' it." What's your view on the compilation of the Quran? I've already posted this issue many times....What yours? I don't say the bible is 100% authentic (however it's contents is too well documented interms of historical and cultural recordings found outside christianity) & neither is the Quran. I believe that some type interpolation has been done in the Quran as well. I don't believe it has all the revelations of Mohammed. Read my previous posts on the different views how it was compiled and which original manuscrpits are available and which aren't...I'm not gonna waste my time and yours by pasting it all over again, if you wanna answer me back then please stop passing cursory glances over my posts but read ALL of them. You said " dont know what you are talking about refusing refuge. It was early on that the new Muslims asked for refuge in Ethiopia by the Christian priest. That was over and done with by the time the Mubahila happened. The Mubahila happened when a group of Christians were debating the Prophet. The debate was going no where and so God intervened and that's when the Mubahila happened." That doesn't answer my question "Why do you think initially the Christians (Ethipoia) gave Muslims refuge (on hearing about their beliefs) but later on (after much time had elapsed as you said) (the people of Hijaz) refused to believe (in Mohammed's message) which led to the Mubahila?" Mind you Abdul Haris Ibne Alqama, the Grand Bishop of Najran, was the official representative of the Roman Church in the Hijaz. You think the Ethiopian refuge could have been given without the consent of the Roman Catholic church? You said "How do I know if the writers didn't make up the whole crucifixion and saving of humanity as a way to get people to convert to their religion? it was a heck of a lot easier for the gentiles to accept a person sacrificing their life than it was to convert to judaism with all its rules. the 'made to appear so' can be that the people who received the preachings, who had not seen the crucifixion and were not witnesses to Jesus' preachings, were made to believe this really happened. Tell me where Jesus said that his death would save his followers from hell?" Are you oblivious of the fact that these people had left Jesus at his time of need but later on went about preaching the "Good News" to everyone facing much slaughter and persecution and hence, death? Something must have happened to them which made them radical about Jesus and then face the "persecution" they were once scared of and because of which left Jesus. What happened? What made them change their views? Did the disciples corrupt Jesus' message or Allah bewitched them as punishment? Ponder on 5:111-113 and 61:14 and focus on tafsir of these verses... You asked "Tell me where Jesus said that his death would save his followers from hell?" Read Luke 24:45-49 You said "This is still telling the Christians and Jews to look into their own sources as a way to see the prophecy of the Prophet." No it says you have NOTHING till you follow the torah, the injeel and now what has been sent down... You obviously aren't aware of what the Gospel was and is according to most Islamic Scholors. If Mohammed would have asked people "to refer" to his message (to validate atleast the ithna ashari theology) that would have Jeopardized his stance. Do you know why? Because the bible teaches quite the opposite. And a large chunk of it too... Didn't you read my second post...it's a summary of the bible's message. Take a year off and read the bible...note the trend of Lamb sacrifices all the way from Abel & Cane all the way to how a Lamb opens the seven seals in the book of Revelations. Ponder over it.... with the following verses in mind since it will tell you why there were so many lamb sacrifices.... For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. (Leviticus 17:11) In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22) Due to the disparity of the bible's message (in contrast to Mohammeds) Muslim scholors (MOST IF NOT ALL) have different views about the scriptures Mohammed is referring too.. 1) It could be that Mohammed endorsed the present-day books in the bible OR 2) The books Mohammed was referring to were currupted after his death OR 3) There were other UNCORRUPTED books Mohammed was alluding to.. I've been ranting about these verses in Surah Al-Maidah for about a week now. It's not my Job to force you to believe in something. I leave it up to you to do your research by consulting with scholors. I already stated the example of Ayatollah Tabtaba'ai that vouches for the 3rd view. Now let's get to fyst... Fyst said about the Sudooq hadith "I quote this tradition with reference to a chain of great Imamiyyah scholars, all of whom are considered as authentic narrators of hadith. Hence, if you are a true believer, you should have faith in the following tradition." First of all I already told you I have left the Shia fundamentals of belief until I finish re-assessing my beliefs... Don't you believe fyst that Gabriel would reveal the Revelations to Mohammed? Didn't Gabriel know verses such as 46:18 and 55:39 amongst others? He obviously had to reveal such verses to other Prophets that preceded Mohammed. Gabriel already knew according to the revelations that he wasn't going to be questioned which is why it seems irrational you say " Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him" Have you forgotten the origin of the Dua'e Kumayl? on http://www.duas.org/kumayl.htm Imam Ali said-"Whosoever keeps awake in devoutness on this night and recites the Du'a of Prophet Khizr, undoubtedly that person's supplication will be responded to and granted. When the assembly at the Mosque had dispersed, Kumayl called at the house where Imam Ali was staying, and requested him to acquaint him with Prophet Khizr's "Du'a". Imam Ali asked Kumayl to sit down, record and memorise the "Du'a" which Imam Ali dictated to Kumayl. Since your an ardent follower of the Imamiyah beliefs what do you think about the following sentence in the Supplication, "...Thou hast sworn to fill the hell with the disbelievers from amongst the jinns and mankind together and to place forever Thy enemies therein.." If Khizr knew only Jinn and Men can go to hell and hence NOT Angels you don't think Gabriel knew that? Khizr made appearence during the time of Moses about 2100 years before Mohammed. Are you telling me for 2100 years Gabriel wasn't aware that the Angels don't go to hell and was told during the time of Mohammed? Btw, Khizr wasn't a Prophet as you said, he was one of god's chosen ones like Luqma'an. Fyst said "Sayyid Fadhlullah claims so. not Ayatullah Sistani. but not even sayyid Fadhlullah claims that prophet Muhammad ever sinned." I don't think you see what the issue is here and hence don't understand what the gospel (in essence) is. Why do you think the Quran incessantly enunciates the fall of Adam and Satan. Ponder what is it's significance!! THREE (Adam, Eve & Satan) were banished out from god's kingdom. What's the signifiance of this Sin/Tarq al awla/Fault/What ever you wanna call it... Keep in mind what Ayatollah Shirazi says about Adam's sin on http://www.shirazi.org.uk/adam.htm "In the teachings of Islam, or Rasulollah (S) we find many moral and ethical issues one is recommended to do. These are not Waajib - not for an ordinary mortal - but in the realm of trying to achieve high moral standards, one must adhere to such those teachings to an extent that they become Waajib for him. For example, it is recommended that one should not eat while walking in the street. Now this may not be so bad for an ordinary person, but it certainly would look bad for a Grand Ayatollah to eat his sandwiches while walking the streets of the city - in a way he would have committed an ethical 'sin' - he did not do the recommended or the desired thing. In the same way Prophet Adam (AS) did something that was recommended and desired to refrain from." Now let's proceed further...www.al-islam.org/nahjul/191.htm According to Imam Ali, Prior to the Fall, Satan had worshipped god for 6000 years!! That's alot of time and worship!! But look what happened!! Just by ONE fault - not bowing down to Adam because of pride - he was banished from God's Kingdom. Look at Adam and Eve - just by giving into Satan's temptation ONCE - they commited a fault/sin/tarq-al-awla/whatever you wanna call it...and hence they were thrown down to this place where we now reside. Can't you learn from these 2 stories? No person, no matter how good his works were, even if he commits a fault/sin/tarq al awla/whatever you wanna call it, is good enough!! Which is why you read in the book of James in the New Testament "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." James (2:10) This is what you have to understand!! Why do you think Jesus would challenge people to prove him of a sin/fault/tarq-al-awla/whatever you wanna call it? Jesus never stumbeled and hence; the Quran gives the answer....He was given the Gospel, a.k.a the "Good News" Read Roman 3 & 4 , Hebrews 11 Fyst you say I can't use the Gospels against the Muslims. What's your view Fyst? Do you believe the Gospel to be an UNCORRUPTED book given to Jesus?Or do you believe the Good/Great News was about the Vicegerency of Imam Ali as purported by Aqa Mehdi pooya & Mir Mohammed ali on their tafsir of Surah 78 (an-Naba)? Knowing Christ and Making him known, Salman
  6. Sorry oldsword81 I got mixed up between you and Ali Zaki. Consider my refutations to Ali Zaki as yours. Blessings, S
  7. BISMILLAH Fyst said "...but from this hadith we see that Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him, along with the prophet , not because there was any chance of his sinning, but to console him." Don't you believe fyst that Gabriel would reveal the Wahi to Mohammed? Didn't Gabriel know verses such as 46:18 and 55:39 amongst others? He obviously had to reveal such verses to other Prophets that preceded Mohammed. Gabriel already knew according to the revelations that he wasn't going to be questioned which is why it seems irrational you say " Gabriel was also in grief after seeing the intensity of Hell. so Allah sent down the angel with the news of this exemption from sin and punishment for him" To me this hadith seems a forgery. If he grieved.....he didn't fully trust in verses such as 46:18 and 55:39 amongst others fyst said "....correct. if we assume "sin" to mean tark-al-awla here." fyst also said about Fadhlullah "....he only accepts that the prophet could make mistakes in matters not related to religion. this is very different from sinning." I don't know what's your definition of Sin. Let's assume it's what ever way you wanna define it. Can you prove Jesus of a single mistake and NOT a sin as you define it? Mind you I have a fatwa I received from Sistani's dept regarding verses of Surah al-Naas and Falaq. He said..."In some traditions, it is mentioned that Lubaid bin Asam, a Jew played magic on the Prophet (pbuh) and then these two chapters were revealed to abort the magic. He sent Ali to abort it." You can have a copy of this fatwa too once I'm over. You say "so i repeat: no scholar in islamic history has held the belief that the prophet could sin." Sorry, but Sistani and Fadhlullah do claim that Mohammed could exhibit mistakes in atleast in his behaviour. Jesus on the other hand would cast out evil spirits. They were actually scared of him. Read the gosepls. Salaam Br. Shahrukh... You need to read all of my posts....by going back to repeat my arguments I'm gonna be wasting my time and yours. Br Ali Zaki....I forgot to re-mention something, considering what you had to say about the Disciples. Assuming your claim about the disciples corrupting the texts - along with my other arguments I posted - what do you think about verses 5:111-113 and 61:14? May Allah's mercy be upon you all, Salman
  8. BISMILLAH Salaam Brother Ali Zaki. Thank you for your reply. You said.."In contrast, what you are referencing on Shirazi's book is when the Prophet was speaking to others who were questioning him as to why he was crying. The Prophet knew that he was going to die soon and the others were wondering why he was crying sins he had no sins. He said he wasn't crying because of that but because of all the difficulties that come AFTER death. Even for a Prophet, the questioning on the daying of Judgement will be intense...so imagine for us! He is trying to tell the people this...that's it's not a piece of cake!" Anaylayze what the Prophet says in his reply He was then asked: ‘Oh Messenger of Allah, do you weep over death when Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future?’ The Prophet (S) said: ‘But what of the terror of the questioning and what of the confines of the grave and the darkness of the tomb, and the resurrection and the other fearsome things? He never objected to "Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future" Again your free to interpret this as you want. Sunni's have a different view on the Prophets fallibility. Fyst says "that He exempted them both from the committing of sins and the consequent punishments." quoting from sheikh sudooq's hadith's. If they both are exempted then why "Allah has forgiven all your sins both past and future" There's difference between Forgiving and Consoling. If Mohammed had never ever sinned in the least the reply be "You have never commited sins both past and future". Wasn't adam forgiven AFTER he commited a sin? Didn't moses, david & solomon ask for forgiveness AFTER they sinned? However I doubt both hadith's, Shirazi's and Sudooq's. (Quoting me shia hadith's isn't useful. I still accept Islam but am cautious on shia aqa'aed until further notice) "no scholar in islamic history has held this belief." Remember fyst about our dialougue on Fadhlullah. You clearly said his aqa'aed are different. You said..."We believe that NO Messenger/Prophet has sinned. What is written in the Bible about the prophets committing adultery or incest, etc. to us is incorrect and a corruption caused by man. this was done deliberately so human beings don't have to feel so bad about sinning..since prophets did them too! this is completely against the beliefs held by Muslims. No one is saying that Jesus committed sin...we are saying that NO Prophet committed sins. This is a critical belief and what sets us apart from Jews and Christians..as well as other sects of Islam (some muslims believe that Prophets made mistakes and could have sinned...Shias do not)." Again...this is the Shia view. The Sunni view is more conforming to the scrptures. They might not believe that they could commit big sins but small ones were possible. What's your views on Moses' fault in Surah al-qasas and David's and Solomon's in surah al-sad? You asked "Please cite the verse. I believe I know which you are referring to, but I want to make sure before I say anything... Thanks." They are 2:37 and 7:23 You asked " don't see where you are getting this from... every Prophet had a title based on his qualities. so each one will be different... Prophet Jesus had a title that other didn't...and vice versa. how is this in opposition to what Shirazi said?" I don't think you understood "fyst"'s allegation, read his post and then my reply. You asked "You never answered my question as to since when does miracles make one prophet better than the other? I don't get this entry/exit business... every Prophet had his own role/duty. Some were given the ability to perform miracles and other didn't. It depended upon what the people they were preaching to needed...and Allah SWT knew what they needed." True...it proves nothing except for one thing. Jesus was unique in this respect. You asked "Why would the Prophet be preaching to Christians to refer to their Gospels?" May I remind you 61:6 and 7:157. I'm not going to paste my arguments all over again. Read them again & think. He was also addressing the Christians. Remember surah al-imran along the verses of Mubahila in 3:61? You said "Everyone knows what Gospels Imam Ali is referring to!" Please tell me..... Why do you think initially the Christians gave Muslims refuge but later on refused to believe which led to the Mubahila? If they had believed in Mohammed's message they would have paid their taxes before the debate. I said "Sounds to me they were reading the Gospel of Matthew" Refer to the two hadith's I provided from Bihar al-anwar. They actually said "...I read in the Gospel.." If it is corrupted ponder on verse 5:68 along with my other arguments. you asked "Why should he!?! If you believe that theQuran is God's literal Word, even a child would be able to tell what doesn't agree and what does agree with God!" Some christians and Jews never embraced Mohammed message. Refer especially to the Dialougues the Imams had with Christians. They are well documents in Al-Kafi. I read them in 2001. So my memory is a little fuzzy....but they actually thought their followers how to argue with christians. They ONLY tried disproving the SON OF GOD issue. You said "Follow it or refer to it? Why would a person who has received God's WORDS follow anything else?" Read all the four translations of 5:47 & 5:68 by shakir, yousuf ali, pickthall & Dr. Mohammed Taqi-ud-deen Al-Hilali and Dr.Mohammed Muhsin Khan You said "there are also Christians out there that believe Jesus was given a book" Could you please cite me some Historical recordings? My knowledge might be too trivial. You said ""They" the Quran is referring to is anyone who was boasting that they killed Jesus" The Romans didn't have much to boast about. Remember what pilate said "I am innocent of this man's death." You said "It was made to appear so could also be interpreted that the writers of the Gospel could have made the whole thing up so that it appeared to them that it really happened." The gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke were written between 50 - 70 A.D. John about the 90's. The "made it to appear to them" would mean atleast 30 years from Jesus' crucifixion. Also "made to appear to them" refers to those who crucified him and NOT his disciples. You said "just like Imam Mehdi does during his present occultation." How many Muslims in the world will vouch for that claim? I wonder why he used the words "Mushaheda" (to see) in his Tauqi (will) found in Behar al Anwar. He claimed all those who would see him before his coming would be liars. However, the Mullahs I spoke to this about said that it referred to those who claimed to see the hidden imam immediately after his major occultation. You gave me the following link "http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/" But what did I ask? Do you any of you know a contemporary Christian Scholor who later on converted to Shi'ism and attained atleast the rank of an a'alim. There are 100's of sites out there about people converting from one faith to the other. Listen up Brother Ali Zaki, I really appreciate your feedback. I'm in serious need of Scholors to address my concerns. I've tried the ones in the Mousque's and other Mujtahids. Which is why I need a contemporary Christian Scholor who later on converted to Shi'ism and attained atleast the rank of an a'alim so I can meet up with him FACE TO FACE. Off to fajr prayers, Salman P.S. Have you read the bible and studied the history of it's manuscripts and compilation? I'm currently conducting a study on them. If Mohammed wanted other christians, jews, pagans to "refer" to ancient scriptures (present in Mohammed's time) that would of jeapordized his stance. Do you know why? Because a huge chunk of the books in the bible say quite the opposite of what is thought in the Shia Fundamentals (Aqa'aed). Why do you think most christian scholors don't convert to Shi'ism but rather opt for other Islamic sects?
  9. BISMILLAH Salaam, Not to go off-topic but to reply to some points, Fyst says "infact even tark-al-awla was not possible for the 14 ma'soo'meen" I wonder why Ayatollah shirazi says the opposite on (http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf) by Ayotllah shirazi on page 11 that Mohammed sins had to be forgiven. Fyst says "you can't find any reference to the "sins" of prophets Lut, Haroon, Khidr, etc. either. doesn't mean anything." You obviously didn't get my point did you. Just as Imam Ali would incessantly ask people to ask him anything because he was the gate to the city of knowledge so did Jesus claim to be without sin. He actually asked people to ask to prove him of a single sin. Read the gospels Fyst says "his mother was from Adam . and just because prophet Isa has in him the spirit proceding from Allah doesn't make him "sin"less. remember that prophet Adam was described as possessing the spirit of Allah HIMSELF (15:29), but he still "sinned" (i.e., comitted tark-al-awla). so if a prophet possessing Allah's rooh can make mistakes, then surely the prophet possessing rooh al qudus can as well." Adam sinned because he gave in to the temptations of Satan. Did Jesus? May be you forgot what happened when he was being tempted by Satan in the middle of the desert. Fyst says "prophet Adam tops that." No offense but Adam had to beg Allah for forgiveness of his faults...Read Surah Al-Baqarah Fyst says "other prophets have titles that Prophet Isa doesn't. for example, prophet Ibrahim is khalee-lillaah." May I present what Ayatollah Shirazi's dept. had to say in reply to a questions I asked. (I'll show you the copy once I'm over at your place) I'll paste the text below. Why has the term 'messiah' been only specifically used for Propet Jesus(AS) by the glorious Quran? Every prophet used to be known by a title representing one of his qualities, and Jesus was known by this particular quality. This does not mean that Jesus did not have other qualities, or that other prophets did not have this particular quality. For example the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and his pure family, was known as Rasulollah, meaning the Messenger of Allah, but this does not mean other prophets were not messengers of Allah. You oppose Shirazi when you say "other prophets have titles that Prophet Isa doesn't" Fyst says "[15:29] He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate [15:40] Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones." Note the word "Deviate" Just because I sin or fault in my actions sometimes does not mean I have deviated!! These can also include those whom Allah forgive of their faults. Fyst says "wrong. all of creation, even satan, has divine characteristics." We're talking about human flesh here. Fyst says "wrong. so does Imam Mahdi" No offense but Imam Mehdi didn't have a miraculous birth. He (according to ithna ashari texts) had a miraculous exit from this world. Assuming that to be true he still hasn't had a miraculous entry - yet. Mind you all muslims would agree on Jesus' miraculous exit and entry but would all muslims on Mohammed ibn Hassan Askari's miraculous exit (The ithna ashari Mehdi) and pending entry? Fyst says "christian sources don't even accept the concept of a Mahdi different from prophet Isa , so this point is moot." That's true....but they believe in two witness' to come down before Jesus comes to Judge. This subject has been of much debate. You can see it's basis in the book of Revelations. According to some....Elijah will be sent to the Jews and Enoch to the Gentiles. Fyst says "it just tells us that Allah lets creation possess His attributes, but with His permission! this is what i meant by all of creation having "divine characteristics" in a part of my reply above." I know Jesus was a servant to God. The subject of the debate was whether his miracles were physical or spiritual as clamied by Ahmedi's. Fyst says "wrong interpretation again. asking someone to refer to some material for guidance does not imply approval of said material. for example, shias ask sunnis to refer to their own collections of ahadith about ghadeer, praise of ahlulbayt, rank of imam Ali in order to convince them about the validity of the shia faith. this does not mean that the shia approve of the sunni ahadith collection. it just means that even their own works are sufficient ("sufficient" being the key word here) to show them the truth. in a similar manner, when in the qur'an or ahadith, the christians or jews are asked to refer to their scriptures, this is not an act of approval of these scriptures. no verse in the qur'an, nor any sound hadith has ever approved of the earlier scriptures." You have a very different view from most scholors. Ponder over verses 26:196 , 10:94 along with the Story of Abdullah bin Salam & 5:68 , 6:34 , 18:27 , 6:115 , 10:64 However, Mohammed and his ahlul-bayt, had one major difference and that was the concept of the trinity. Read 4:171 & 5:73 in the Quran. This is evident - as a result of 3:61 -in the event of Mubahila. Checkout http://www.ezsoftech.com/islamic/mubahila.asp The ahlul-bayt always OBJECTED to only one of the christian teachings in their debate. "SON OF GOD" But let's understand the trinity the Quran doesn't agree with. Read 5:116 in the Quran. The pagan christian arabs had a tradition of keeping three idols symbolizing that Christ was conceived from God through Mary. They puported mary as god's wife. They believed in the trinity of Jesus, Marry & the Father. Keep in mind the topic of debate between the Ahlul-bayt and the christians of Najran. Did they argue of Jesus being the prophecised sin offering? Did they argue that he was NOT placed at the right hand of God? Did they argue he was NOT raised back up alive? Did they say he was NOT prophecised in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53? (Note: The dead sea scrolls were proven through carbon testing that those "FOUND" manuscripts were dated back to 1 B.C.) They only argued on the Pagan Idea of trinity!! Just to refresh your memory as to what I wrote.... [5:47] Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed THEREIN. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. [5:48] And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever SCRIPTURE was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. [5:66] If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. [5:68] Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not for the disbelieving folk. These verses make it emphatically clear that Mohammed was purporting towards written material present in his time. The injeel was not Jesus. If it was Jesus, Moahmmed would have been seen as a sham because Jesus had already disappeared before Mohammed. Which books are these that Mohammed endorses? Just imagine Mohammed gets a revelation and then tells his 42 scribes to write this down. This must have then been narrated to the masses. Yet no one asks which gospels is he talking about?!?! How blind are you guys? Which other books is he refferring? Mohammed is telling the Christians of his time to refer to the Gospels!! Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi, in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.XIV, p.74 reports from Mu'affaq Bin Ahmad Khawarizmi and Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini reports from Abu Sa'id Buhturi that he (Abu Sa'id) said: "I saw Ali on the pulpit while he was putting on the Holy Prophet's mantle, sword and the turban. He uncovered his chest and said: 'Ask me anything you like, before I die, because my breast contains great wisdom. This is my stomach which is a storehouse of knowledge. This is the saliva of the Holy Prophet; this is what the Holy Prophet has fed me as grain. I swear by Allah that if a carpet is spread and I sit on it, verily, I will instruct the follower of the Torah, according to the Torah. I will instruct the followers of the GOSPELS according to the GOSPELS, until both the Torah and the Gospels are made to speak and bear witness to the following: Ali has spoken the truth and the verdict that he has given is according to what has been revealed in us. When you recite the Book you don't understand this much.'" Which Gospels is Ali endorsing? No one asks him? Which ones were corrupt? What did ali and Mohammed say? Areef......even the Jehovah witness' endorse the four gospels in the new Testament!! Tell me which gospels is Mohammed endorsing? Did they get corrupted after Mohammed's time? Yet history doesn't record it. You might quote other gospels...but all speak about Jesus' crucifixion except for Barnabas found in the 14th Century...much after Mohammed. Maybe you might wanna read my 2nd post on this thread, it's about contradictions in the Bible. You can beat your whole head around this one...the fact of the matter is many Aytollahs have given flimsical arguments. The most ludicrous I ever came across was Ayatollah Tabatabai who uses - on his site al-mizan.org - verses from Galatians 1:6-10 to prove there were other gospels. Little did he realize - if only he had read further - that this other gospel being preached was Christ crucified and ressurrected with the observance of the Jewish Law and NOT the muslim concept of the injeel. You say that the Romans killed Jesus because of political reasons. In which Gospel was this that Mohammed approved? People just love misquoting don't they!! Al-Sayyid ibn Tawus, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I read in the Gospel that Jesus ('a) said: "I tell you, do not worry about what you will eat or what you will drink or with what you will clothe your bodies. Is not the soul more excellent than food, and the body more excellent than clothes? Look at the birds of the air, they neither sow nor reap nor store away, yet your heavenly Lord provides for them. Are you not more excellent than they'? Who among you by worrying can add a single measure to his stature'? Then why do you worry about your clothes?'' (Bihar al-anwar, xiv, 317) Al-Sayyid ibn Tawus, may God have mercy on him, said: "I read in the Gospel that Jesus ('a) said: 'Who among you gives his son a stone when he asks for bread? Or who hands out a snake when asked for a cloak? If despite the fact that your evil is well-known you give good gifts to your sons, then it is more fitting that your Lord should give good things to one who asks." (Bihar al-anwar, xiv, 318; Sa'd al-su'ud, 56) Sound to me they were reading the Gospel of Matthew. Let's say if your claim is correct. Atleast Mohammed could have told which books or Gospels were correct? Which one's were corrupted? Which verses he agreed with? Which he didn't? Remember what he says in 5:68? Ofcourse if the gospels were corrupted long before Mohammed's time, he wouldn't tell me to follow all of it. You can run in circles in this forever. I remember confronting an aalim with this verse. He claimed that according to the tafseer he read I remember he was quoting from a persian text. I'm pretty sure it was Ayatollah Tabatabai's al-mizan. The aalim - I asked - told me these referred to other uncorrupted gospels in Mohammed's time. Actually almost every scholor has a different view. You know I think Mohammed & his 12 successors could have made life much easier for the whole muslim ummah if they could just tell us which Gospels were right and which weren't. Don't forget about their entourage.....you think they were never asked such question? I wonder why their answers weren't documented. Btw, the Quran has a very unique claim. It actually says Jesus was given the gospel. Alot of Scholors interpret this differently. I liked my post's reader "Kadhim"'s view alot. However what do you believe fyst? Do you believe that the gospel was an uncorrupted book? Please provide some historical references next time when giving in your claim. (Dates of manuscripts would be nice) Ali zaki did you forget what I said in my first post about Jesus being killed? I'll paste it again "Also in the quran verse 157 of sura Nisa'ah can be interpreted in many different ways. It is true...they (the Jews) did not kill him neither crucified him....because the Romans did. Also it was made to appear to them. How do we know that he didn't die and hence wasn't crucifed ? That's because he appeared again on Sunday Morning!!" That Quranic verse can be interpreted in a number of ways. Whether it's divinly inspired or not is a debate by itself. However everyone can ATLEAST consent ananimously that it's poetry. Brother Fyst you have to understand. I just didn't change my beliefs overnight but by asking Scholors and Aalims questions and then analyzing their "different" claims. To me they just don't only hold up (according to historically recorded data), but contradict each other. You probably remember how ardently I would argue with Mormons when defending my Shia beliefs earlier on this year. I have already referred to Scholors. Right now I'm just creating an awareness. Don't think I've left Islam yet. A wise man once said "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water" If all u would like to see me attain salvation then please could you all atleast do me a favour? Do you any of you know a contemporary Christian Scholor who later on converted to Shi'ism and attained atleast the rank of an a'alim. I would love to meet up with him. I've already tried those that didn't accept Shi'ism. For e.g. Yusuf Estes. He unfortunately misquotes too. O Mighty God save me from your followers, Salman BTW - Fyst, I forgot to tell you one thing. I received a fatwa from Ayatollah Sistani's dept. They DON'T believe that the Quran placed in Imam Reza Museum, Mashad was written by Imam Ali. He actually believes there exists no copy written by any of the 12 Imams as opposed to claims held by Shirazi and Fadhlullah. I will let you have a copy of the fatwa once I'm over.
  10. BISMILLAH I finally found the Sanhedrin regulations in the Talmud. Read Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:1 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...sanhedrin4.html Capital cases could only legally be tried in the daytime. Waiting for more responses on the Injeel and Torah Mohammed endorsed, Salman P.S - The clues to cracking this paradox lies in the works of Ibn Hazm www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/MuhBible.html www.***.org.uk/Responses/Saifullah/index.html
  11. BISMILLAH No offense areef. You might think I'm not a muslim. I hope I am, and my Lord - who judges me - knows better You can believe whatever you want. I guess just because I believe christ was crucified - and also believe in mohammed and the Quran while practicing muslim laws - makes me a non-muslim to you. I'll still pray to Allah for you. I'll give your stuff a read but I guess they're written by Ahmedi muslim scholors so I'll have to treat their works with care. You asked me about the illegal Sanhedrin meeting. I was lucky enough to find John McArthur's works online. http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2389.htm http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2390.htm blessings & may god's grace be with you, Salman
  12. BISMILLAH Salaam to all my readers. May the Grace of Allah be upon you all. Kadhim I'm pleased to hear with what you had to say. You said "because I am finding a number of my evolving opinions well outside the mainstream opinion of scholars. But since scholars are fallible human beings, I don't have a big existential problem about that." That's true...I feel the same way. May be that's why the hidden Imam re-appear. I too believe that Islam is not the only way to salvation. Do you know why? Let me give you two scenerios. If your well vesred with shia literature you'll know that God will decide through Imam Ali who goes to heaven or hell. That is Imam Ali will be judging. The christian view is that God will be judging through Jesus. However BOTH (Jesus and Ali) are prudent individuals. When they'll assess each person's case - in a way befits god - they would know the sincerity of each one's actions. So u c what I'm trying to say....it doesn't matter if you were christian, jew, or muslim. These judges have great intellect and will be able to judge our sincereity NOT who or what prophet we follwed. Which is why I don't believe there is only ONE way to salvation. You spoke about my mis-interpretation of the "Trinity" True...there is one god no matter what you call him - Allah , Elohim, Jehovah, Yahweh etc. Everything other than him was a creation. Angels, humans, the Holy Spirit. Just as god would use his angels to speak to prophets I do believe that God used the Holy Spirit to make everything in a way that befits god's understanding. Finite minds cannot understand the infinite. However that Holy Spirit became flesh into a being called Jesus. Both of these entities were servants to God. However since Jesus was blessed with the Holy spirit, Jesus was not god but godly. He just had a much more powerful connection with the lord. Just when I say Jesus was seated at the right hand of god....I mean god will judge through him. For e.g. in Shia Literature in the Prophet's ascension to heaven God spoke to Mohammed in the face and body of Imam Ali because he was the closest to the prophet's heart. In the same way I believe that still jesus is a servant of God just like the holy spirit. But god will administer through him. It's like he's god's vicegerent and deputation to humans. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear before....you could have just asked. These are my personal beliefs which I don't impose on anyone. This sort of trinity I believe in and ponder over. You spoke about salvation...no offence but the whole concept of blood sacrifice all the way from Abel & Cane is too overwhelming for me to ignore. You made some good headway in to Genesis account...but let's leave that since it's off topic. But however I read Hagar put Ishmael under a bush but never carrying him. I believe you cited Genesis 21:14 He set the food and water on her shoulders. However I see your point of the 14 year old....thanks. I will answer your's and areef's views together. Areef....may be you never read my post deeply. John 10 occured before Jesus' triumphal entry (John 12). Now a great no. joined up and cheered for Jesus. The jews must have known that his entourage can be of no match for the Roman force. which is why most people turned their backs upon him when confronted with the romans. This is still apparent today. Before Hitler managed to screw the Jews in the holocaust. Why doesn't now anyone wipe out Israel? Simple....because of America's backing!! Sameway Jesus in John 12 had people at his side. The Jews had no choice but to lean on the romans. You said they could of stoned Jesus before for blasphemy if they wanted to. Why didn't they? Read John 10:34-42 I don't know why you only pick those verses in the bible that befit your stance. People like you make my faith in Jesus stronger. It helps me realize how satan is constantly at war with him. You say he failed to pay tribute to Ceasar....dead wrong!! Jesus had said quite the opposite. This was a deliberate lie. Read Matthew 22:15-22 Proclomation of a Kingdom......that's true. He always kept on telling people the Kingdom of Heaven is now at hand. You said "Also can you substanciate for me from Jewish records that it was implausible for the Sanhendren to gather together at night?" I'm right now not in Canada but away in the Middle East. When I'm back in Canada I'll provide you with references since most of my resources aren't presently with me. Now this was funny........."The miracles of Christ were not deemed credible and according to Biblical records his following was small. It is known clearly that most of the miracles attributed to him are exaggerated as in John saying it will fill numerous books(John 21:25). The miracles were relative to a metaphorical interpreation. Causing the dead hearts to revive, opening the blind hearts to spiritual truth, healing the sick in spirit of their amoral ways and providing truth, for man lives not by word alone but by every word of God (Mt 4:4)." I wonder if you've ever read the Quran.... [10:31] Say: Who gives you sustenance from the heaven and the earth? Or Who controls the hearing and the sight? And Who brings forth the living from the dead, and brings forth the dead from the living? And Who regulates the affairs? Then they will say: Allah. Say then: Will you not then guard (against evil)? [3:49] And (make him) a messenger to the children of Israel: That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah's permission and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with Allah's permission and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers. [5:110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment. You've obviously been a bit too involved with gnostic literature You ranted further...."Doing supernatural fits are meaningless for even Christ found admitting in the Gospel record: He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But NONE will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Mt 12:39" Did u turn a BLIND eye to Matthew 12:38? The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were asking a sign!!! Jesus had already done many more miracles before and after them. But his sign of Jonah was especially dedicated to the unbending bigots like the pharisees. This obviously impressed some of the ignorant. READ Matthew 27:54 This was THE SIGN for them...only Allah knows if they regretted in their hearts. Jesus knew...that was the best miracle...coming back to life!! You had the audacity to say "...The miracles of Christ were not deemed credible and according to Biblical records...." Kadhim further denies....."The Injeel/evangelion/Gospel is not Barnabus. It is not the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It is not the Gospels of Thomas, or Mary, or Phillip, or Infancy Gospel Thomas or Infancy Gospel James, though all these, some of them with more truth and accuracy likely than others, give slices of the injeel, which is not contained in any physical book, and was not, ever. Jesus was a walking, talking manifestation of the Word of God, in much the same way that Imam Ali stated at the battle of Siffeen that "I am the living Qu'ran." That is, every word and action of Jesus was part of the injeel and together form this book. Existing "Gospels" are "Readers Digest" summaries." Let's see...... [5:47] Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed THEREIN. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. [5:48] And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever SCRIPTURE was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ. [5:66] If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct. [5:68] Say O People of the Scripture! Ye have naught (of guidance) till ye observe the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto you from your Lord. That which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them. But grieve not for the disbelieving folk. These verses make it emphatically clear that Mohammed was purporting towards written material present in his time. The injeel was not Jesus. If it was Jesus, Moahmmed would have been seen as a sham because Jesus had already disappeared before Mohammed. Which books are these that Mohammed endorses? Just imagine Mohammed gets a revelation and then tells his 42 scribes to write this down. This must have then been narrated to the masses. Yet no one asks which gospels is he talking about?!?! How blind are you guys? Which other books is he refferring? Mohammed is telling the Christians of his time to refer to the Gospels!! Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi, in Yanabiu'l-Mawadda, ch.XIV, p.74 reports from Mu'affaq Bin Ahmad Khawarizmi and Sheikhu'l-Islam Hamwaini reports from Abu Sa'id Buhturi that he (Abu Sa'id) said: "I saw Ali on the pulpit while he was putting on the Holy Prophet's mantle, sword and the turban. He uncovered his chest and said: 'Ask me anything you like, before I die, because my breast contains great wisdom. This is my stomach which is a storehouse of knowledge. This is the saliva of the Holy Prophet; this is what the Holy Prophet has fed me as grain. I swear by Allah that if a carpet is spread and I sit on it, verily, I will instruct the follower of the Torah, according to the Torah. I will instruct the followers of the GOSPELS according to the GOSPELS, until both the Torah and the Gospels are made to speak and bear witness to the following: Ali has spoken the truth and the verdict that he has given is according to what has been revealed in us. When you recite the Book you don't understand this much.'" Which Gospels is Ali endorsing? No one asks him? Which ones were corrupt? What did ali and Mohammed say? Areef......even the Jehovah witness' endorse the four gospels in the new Testament!! Tell me which gospels is Mohammed endorsing? Did they get corrupted after Mohammed's time? Yet history doesn't record it. You might quote other gospels...but all speak about Jesus' crucifixion except for Barnabas found in the 14th Century...much after Mohammed. Maybe you might wanna read my 2nd post on this thread, it's about contradictions in the Bible. You can beat your whole head around this one...the fact of the matter is many Aytollahs have given flimsical arguments. The most ludicrous I ever came across was Ayatollah Tabatabai who uses - on his site al-mizan.org - verses from Galatians 1:6-10 to prove there were other gospels. Little did he realize - if only he had read further - that this other gospel being preached was Christ crucified and ressurrected with the observance of the Jewish Law and NOT the muslim concept of the injeel. You say that the Romans killed Jesus because of political reasons. In which Gospel was this that Mohammed approved? People just love misquoting don't they!! Al-Sayyid ibn Tawus, may Allah have mercy on him, said: I read in the Gospel that Jesus ('a) said: "I tell you, do not worry about what you will eat or what you will drink or with what you will clothe your bodies. Is not the soul more excellent than food, and the body more excellent than clothes? Look at the birds of the air, they neither sow nor reap nor store away, yet your heavenly Lord provides for them. Are you not more excellent than they'? Who among you by worrying can add a single measure to his stature'? Then why do you worry about your clothes?'' (Bihar al-anwar, xiv, 317) Al-Sayyid ibn Tawus, may God have mercy on him, said: "I read in the Gospel that Jesus ('a) said: 'Who among you gives his son a stone when he asks for bread? Or who hands out a snake when asked for a cloak? If despite the fact that your evil is well-known you give good gifts to your sons, then it is more fitting that your Lord should give good things to one who asks." (Bihar al-anwar, xiv, 318; Sa'd al-su'ud, 56) Sound like Matthew huh?!?! I encourage you guys to get a hold of Bihar Al-Anwar and start reading it...may take you forever..it has 110 volumes...I still have a long way to go. Kadhim said about christian deviants..."Good. But why do you think these Christian deviants exist? They accepted Jesus as their saviour, didn't they? Why hasn't the spirit entered them to purify their hearts?" May I suggest Hebrews 6:4-6 and Romans 7:7-25 I can't tell you about others but I can tell you about myself. Before accepting Christ's sacrifice as my atonement I had no idea what the love of god was. I knew what was the fear and wrath of Allah. I had no idea about the love of God. Now I know why he is called the Most Merciful and Most Gracious! Kadhim said "I plan to write some books if God allows me the time and energy as my research becomes more complete to remedy this problem." May I suggest Dr.Nabeel T.Jabbour. He's a christian with a PhD in Islam who has written some really good books both to help christians understand muslims better and vice-versa. You can google him up. He happens to be a friend of mine and works for the navigators full time. Greetings on the auspicious birthday of the Shi'ite Imam, Salman (Victorious in Christ)
  13. Just a quick note areef...you tried refting me with the "adulteress" issue. That appears between John 7:53 - 8:11 Cyan...."No. Imam Ali didn't belive that either." True the context is different. I just wanted to show how bad misquoting can be. Areef....let me ask you this. Let's consider your point. Do you really think the jews would wanna kill Jesus themselves without Roman force? I mean this guy performed many miracles in front of many people, bringing the dead to life, healing the sick, providing large amounts of food from little sustenance etc. Obviously, if I wanted to kill Jesus I would resort to the stronger authorities. I mean consider the havoc the jews would have bought upon themselves. This guy had won the hearts of many. But the jews must have known that his entourage can be of no match for the Roman force which is why most people turned their backs upon him. Consider this along with my previous points. Blessings, S P.S. - I'm not saying everthing I tell u is authentic. I'm trying to be pragmatic here. And about John 10......that was before the Triumphal Entry!! consider the masses!!
  14. BISMILLAH Thank you very much everybody for replying. This is really spicing up my summer. Things were going slow after the soccer world cup finished. I don't know how long I'll be paying attention to this thread....probably as long as I can muster up all the replies I can get. I still remember how I was introduced to this website. I was at "fyst"'s place and he went up on this site. I told him that chat forums are the last place you'd ever wanna go to learn information. He said "that's true!". I asked him then "Why are u on it?". "By this you can know contemporary shia mentality." he repied........ How true!! Brothers the purpose of these posts is just to know u all!! Not to know anything about Islam or Christianity. When I was learning Christianity...I read the bible along with commentary books along with watching bible study shows of pastors. Same goes while learning shia/sunni ideology. To learn about a faith it's best to learn it from those who practice it. If I ever wanted to get answers I wouldn't have come here, would I? I'm just gathering everyone's replies.....so keep'em coming. Just wanted to know the common awareness amongst shias...and am impressed. Why do u think I end my posts by asking questions? Now to the more mundane things in life..... oldsword81......You mentioned about All messengers being sinless. I use to believe that until I was countered with other evidence - albeit might not be authentic to u - which made me re-asses my beliefs. Didn't u read my 1st post? Don't take offece to what I wrote. Keep a cool head. I've pasted it below for your convenience The Qur'an says about God, "There is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees" (Surah 42:11). As for Christ, it goes without saying that He is matchless. He was born from a virgin without a man. He was the only One described as 'God's Word and a Spirit from Him'. He was the only One over whom Satan did not have any authority. He was the only One who had divine characteristics. Also out of all the people who have had a miraculous entry into this world, he was the only one to have a miraculous exit. Also in Chapter 28 (Qasas) Moses asks forgiveness for his faults, in chapter 38 (as-Sad) we see David and Solomon asking forgiveness for their faults, in chapter 47 verse 19 and and chapter 48 verse 2 Mohammed sins had to be forgiven. Also in "The Quran: When was it Compiled?" (http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf) by Ayotllah shirazi on page 11 that Mohammed sins had to be forgiven. That means Mohammed to was Guilty of Sin if Allah wouldn't forgive him. However, no where can I find that Jesus ever sinned!! After all this should come as no surprise, since he wasn't from Adam unlike EVERYONE else!! Remember in Surah 4 verse 171...Allah says Jesus was spirit proceeding from HIM!! you said "I also don't understand your theory as to why people didn't believe in the Imamat." Yes...it's just a proposition...I still need to re-assess my beliefs. Ignore me until further notice!! :-) Areef Hamdi......wow you are antagonisitc towards me aren't u? Surely you wouldn't expect that from a partisan of Ali. Remember....Mohammed or Ali or Jesus will be who they were. Just because I have a different opinion doesn't mean I'm right. I never said I was a scholor. Let's start with u. You mentioned "Ayatullah Khamenei forbade using the word father". No offence but this same man endorses the concept of Wilayat-e-faqih and wali-il-amr. Something which I don't accept. What are your views on his confrontation with Ayatollah Montazeri? May I ask you to read his book "The Memoirs of Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri" ? If I have to side with Jesus or Khaameni, I guess I prefer Jesus and think of Allah as my Heavenly Father waiting for his follower that is on a moving walkway by grace towards HIM and NOT as a physical father. Now let's get to the Quran. I said there were three views I ever encountered on the quran. Read my 2nd post 1) The Sunni view that it came through the order of compilation of Usman 2) The rejected Quran of Ali http://www.irib.ir/Special/imam%20ali/html...by_imam_ali.htm 3) The "wishful thinking" view of hardliners like Ayatollah Shirazi http://www.shirazi.org.uk/the%20quran%20when%20was%20it.pdf Your view is a little different from the shia belief "Two such copies of the copied text of the original Qur’an authenticated by the Prophet are present to this day, one at the museum in Tashkent in erstwhile Soviet Union and the other at the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey." http://www.islam101.com/quran/preservedQ.htm by Dr Zakir Naik. My verdict still holds!! It's a copy which came into being during usman's reign!! Can you show me through carbon testing that it dates back before the prophet's death? Or before Abu-bakr's death? Remember "the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost." I wonder where did this abu-bakr compilation go? You mentioned the watchtower...the Jehovah witness hub. True...they have their differences. I still need to study them. I use to blindly run to their sites to defend my muslim view when arguing with trinitarians but never actually read all of their works and do unbiased research. I hope you had a different approach. But let me ask you? If they uploaded anything against Islam would u accpet it? I don't think you would. You mentioned Matthew (10:32) , Mark (13:32) & John (5:37). True...the father is greater than him. When did I say I never accepted that? You speak the same language of those who have been attacking christian beliefs from the time of Ibn Hazm. Ahmed Deedat thrived on such verses and so does my ex-hero Zakir Naik. These are wide-spread among sites like www.answering-christianity.com Your gonna go in circles with this may I suggest www.***.org.uk I don't endorse these two sites...they both like misquoting like you. You mentioned Mark 16:9-20 were not credible. What about the ending of Luke, don't they puuprt the same message? Any disagreement there too? Did u forget that John7:53 - 8:11 don't appear in early manuscripts? but you still resorted to them in order to refute me. YOu said........."Did you forget about the Adulteress who was to be stoned to death? Was there a great March of Roman soldiers to prevent this "murder" from taking place? Obviously, as can be seen testified in the gospels the JEWS implemented capital punishment per their LAW, history books affirm this as well. So try again..." First of all did u turn a blind eye to John 8:6 ? They were trying to trap him!! Secondly if you ever studied roman and jewish history you would have known that crucifixion was a "ROMAN" form of punishment. That's why the jews couldn't crucify him. Did u forget that night courts were illegal? Let's see if your misquoted claim holds... Read Mark 14:48-49 God's questions always expose a person's true thoughts, and if the rabble had taken the moment to think, they would have realized the inconsistency of their actions. But they were so fixated in their determination to do away with christ, even another encounter with the miraculous power of this man didn't deter them the last bit. Fearing for their lives, the disciples fled into the night. Read Mark 14:50 & John 18:12 One can hardly read this without feeling some sense of incongruity. Jesus was only one individual. The detachment sent to arrest him would have numbered between 300 and 600 soldiers. In addition, there were Jewish officials, priests and servants. It was an overkill for sure, but you can't help wondering if deep down inside they felt a poverty of power. They rushed Jesus & bound him. Satan must have chortled with delight. Read Mark 14:53 Temple courts were not held at night. The fact that the Sanhedrin, consisting of 71 men, could be assembled so quickly tells u something about the plot. Their willingness to convene in the middle of the night reveals even more. What they were doing was strictly illegal according to their own law. Even for those not familiar with the judicial system of that day, the irregularities of the trial are painfully obvious. No matter. Forget the rules. They wanted Jesus dead. Read Mark 14:55-64 The High Priest, Caiaphas, knew exactly what Jesus had said. Blasphemy was anything that was considered injurious to God's character. However, neither Caiaphas nor the other Jewish leaders believed him. So they condemned him to die. But there was a problem: the Sanhedrin did not have the authority to pass a death sentence; only the Romans could do that. BECAUSE NIGHT COURTS WERE ILLEGAL, the Sanhedrin met agian just after sunrise to go through the legal motions of trying Jesus. He must have been exhausted. He hadn't slept all night, and they had given him a severe beating just to make sure he knew who was in control. Read Luke 23:1 Pontius Pilate, governor of judea, had all the authority of imperial Rome behind him. Since in the most cases the Jewish courts could not impose the death penalty, they needed Roman sanction. Pilate was their man. The temple leaders knew he was weak-kneed, so a little persuading was in order. Read Luke 23:2 Jesus had NEVER prohibited his followers from paying taxes. In fact, Jesus had said quite the opposite. This was a deliberate lie. Read Matthew 22:15-22 But with so many legalites having already been ignored, who was keeping track? On the other hand, it was true that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah! Read Luke 23:3 and John 18:36 Jesus' reign began in the heart. He had no political ambitions. Read John 18:37-38 People still ask the same question today. But pilate was in no mood for listening; he didn't even wait for the answer. Read John 18:38 Pilate mistrusted the priests. As Roman governor, he knew he was hated by the jews, and he had reasons to believe that the priests did not have have Ceasar's best interests in mind. The Sanhedrin must have some other motive for wanting Jesus dead. Read Luke 23:4-7 Pilate had the authority to hear Jesus' case, but the situation was getting uncomfortable. Jesus was being accused of inciting the people to insurrection. How would he explain to his superiors in Rome if Jesus did provoke a riot? It would be easier to dump the whole sorry mess in Herod's lap. Besides, Herod was no friend of his, so Pilate passed the buck. Herod Antipas was a son of Herod the Great. As a puppet of Rome, he had been given jurisdiction over Jesus' home province of Galilee. He had traveled to Jerusalem for the yearly Passover festivities. Read Luke 23:8-9 Jesus knew that Herod had no interest in determining the truth. He only wished to be entertained by a miracle, showing his flagrant disrespect for Jesus' character. Jesus didn't indulge Herod. Instead, he remained quiet. Read Luke 23:10-12 Since his arrest, Jesus had been in five court sessions: three jewish and two Roman. The sixth trial would be his last. By this time, word had spread throughout the city. No longer were the High Priest and Sanhedrin the only ones accusing Jesus. They had been joined by a fickle multitude, who only a few days before had shouted, "Hossana" but now vehemently roared, "Crucify Him!" Pilate was in a dilemma. The more he dealt with Jesus, the more convinced he was that there was something uncommon about this man! Read Luke 23:13-16 Neither Herod nor Pilate could find Jesus guilty of anything deserving the death penalty. Indeed,it seemed no one could accuse him of any crime. I'm sure you know the rest of the story... You accuse me of not having faith, well brother I'm just happy your not the one that's going to Judge me in my next life. I still however will pray for you in unconditional love like christ. Fyst...."salman, hopefully you haven't told your parents about your current set of beliefs yet, as that wouldn't be a very smart thing to do. just take some more time and make sure you aren't going to change your opinions again anytime soon before doing so." Thank you very much for your kind words and support. You don't know how painful it is for me to sleep at night - I'm always contemplating and praying - to God for guidance. This has been one of the most difficult moments in my life. I'm at war with my ownself. Fyst...you understand I'm an impartial reader and as an impartial reader I shall die. You have to understand..are you a shia because you were born in a shia family or is it because of sincere research of faiths you have encoutered? This doesn't apply to fyst but also to everyone reading this post. My parents have been very supportive of me and know what are my thoughts. They are well aware that only - shear evidence - could have a changed a boisterous and vociferous individual as myself. What are my beliefs? I don't know yet. What I know will take years to re-assess. Maybe even a life-time. I read works of so many famous muslim scholors and use to use their arguments while refuting christians. Only when I sincerely analayzed the bible message and historical texts I realized that they too misquoted. I still follow the Islamic rulings, Salaat, Saum, Zakat, etc. But know by accepting christ in your heart as the atonement offering and a spirit proceeding from HIM, I don't have to loose my Islamic way of living and beliefs. I still revere Mohammed and his ahlul-bayt. I don't have to go to church...No!! You see I follow the Shariah not because it makes me righteous or is the atonement....no for three major reasons I said in my 2nd post... 1) It's provides a way of living so societies can co-exist & thrive. 2) You undestand what is God like...you can recognize him but you can't know him. Ponder over his commands. 3) You realize that the inherent corruption will get us one way or another because of which we are sinners. It's more like a mirror and thermometer. It might increase our fellowship with god but not our relationship. I have as a matter if ihtiyaat - until further notice - have accepted Jesus Crucified and ressurected. Only until I get to the bottom of this inconsistency of the bible with the Quranic message. No offence but from my experience I don't trust many muslim scholors anymore. They've let me down by misquoting. My parents know about my beliefs totally and have been very supportive. They were the first ones I told and surely I couldn't have asked god for better parents. With prayers for everyone's success and well-being, Salman P.S. - Do u think it's possble that the only reason Imam Mehdi doesn't re-appear is because maybe we are ready for him, but not for ready he who will be accompanying him? i.e. Jesus
  15. BISMILLAH May Allah's (My heavenly father) blessings be upon all of you. Wow, I'm surprised by all the feedback I've gotten. Thank you for writing. I see most of you want to know what I believe. Ever here the prinicple "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water"? You see brothers I believe that by accepting the christ as my "Maula" I can still be a muslim. You might think that I'm screwed up. Let me tell you what Jesus said "Don't Judge otherwise you will be Judged". Let me sum up my beliefs..... LA ILLAHA IL Allah (There is no god but Allah) MOHAMMED AR RASOOL Allah (Mohammed is the messenger of Allah) ISA AL MASEEH Allah (Jesus is the Messiah of Allah) I believe after his success by living the all perfect life he was placed at god's right hand and hence was granted wilayah and imamah over all...."the living and the dead". Very similar to what shias believe with their Imams huh? You see, unlike mainstream christians, I don't believe your saved by going to church. Neither by reading the bible more and more. "No one comes to the father EXCEPT through me". I'm non-denominational. But I do believe the present-day Quran is different from the ORIGINAL. I do believe that Mohammed was sent to the pagan arabs just to abolish all the prevailent polytheistc beliefs they had. Basically his Islam was a road-map to christianity. Very similar to how Paul dealt with the gentiles after his encounter with the Lord. I believe alot of people only accepted Mohammed's message - during his time - just because they saw that not only was his movement exonerateing the oppressed but also won over an entire kingdom. All they had to do was wait for him to die after which they could snatch it all for themselves. Why do you think many muslims never accepted the concept of Imamiyah of the Imams? Why do you think that in such a less amount of time they reviled Ali, Fatima, Hassan & Hussain? They obviously knew the ancient scriptures very well - about Jesus being seated at the right hand of god - & didn't buy off their wilayah. They obviously must have thought the Bani Hashim must have played a "show" just for power. I'm not saying these are entirely my beliefs but I do say that we all are on a journey. I just pray to god that I am where he wants me to be. I don't say I'm right...I don't say I'm wrong. I'm still studying. Now to address your concerns.... I remember Ali Zaki provided me the followinglink "http://alislam.org/jesus_shiite_narrations/" I once remember reading in "The gospel of shia of ali" about 2 years back that Imam Ali said "Jesus is my brother in heaven". He obviously too accepted christ as his lord and saviour because of which he considered himself to be included in the family of god. People who are well versed with the New Testament will know what I'm talking about. You might wanna throw hadith's at me....but know this, Imtiaz Ali has lead the largest research done on the narrations found in Nahjul Balagha. He managed to trace them back in many other books. But guess what....he's still a sunni. Are ali's narrations authentic? That I will personally need to study. I've read Nahjul Balagha but not all of Imtiaz Ali's findings yey. Let's get to Kadhim. I asked why was Jesus sentenced to crucifixion. The members of the Sanhedrin were looking for an excuse to kill him. But had no proof against him. Afterall Jesus challenged people if they could prove him of a single sin. The gospels tell us he was sentenced to crucifxion. Why? For blasphemy. Blasphemy for what? Read Matthew 26:63 , Mark 14:61 , Luke 22:70, John 19:7. Why do you believe he was sentenced to crucifixion? What excuse did they find against him because of which they were justified according to the law? You mentioned that the Talmud mentions other prophets after Abraham not from the line of Isaac. Tell me, were those mentioned Nabis or Rasools? My question still holds! Name me the Rasools that were sent after Isaac until Jesus. Don't name me Nabi's.....but Rasools!! Every Rasool is a nabi but not every Nabi is a rasool. That's what I read in Aqa Mehdi Pooya/ Mir Mohammed ali's tafsir available on www.al-islam.org However there is an exception. Gabreal was mentioned atleast once as a rasool in the Quran. However to know of some Rasools after Isaac and before Jesus, read surah al Maryam. You mentioned inconsistencies in Genesis...can u share them with me. I hope these aren't what the Ayatollahs have showed you or messed up sites like www.answering-christianity.com The following is a good example I once read from a web-site and saved it as a word file. I fell to laughter as I read how they misquoted the bible. ************************** Question: I am a Muslim and I have a friend who is a new Muslim. He wanted to know the name of Abraham’s sacrificed son. The Bible says it was Isaac (sws). Is this true ? Answer: Without doubt, the son offered for sacrifice by Abraham (sws) was Ishmael (sws). The Qur’an bears reference to this established historical fact in the following words: And he [—Abraham—] said [after being saved from the fire]: ‘Verily, I am going to my Lord. He will guide me!’ ‘My Lord! Grant me (offspring) from the righteous.’ So We gave him glad tidings of a forbearing boy. And, when he [his son] was old enough to walk with him, he said: ‘O my son! I have been seeing in a dream that I am offering you in sacrifice [to Allah]. So look what you think!’ He said: ‘O my father! Do that which you are commanded, Insha Allah, you shall find me of the patient. Then, when they had both submitted themselves [to the will of Allah], and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead, We called out to him: ‘O Abraham! You have made the dream a reality’. Verily, thus do We reward the good-doers. Verily, that indeed was a manifest trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice [a ram]; And We left for him [a goodly remembrance] among the later generations. Peace be upon Abraham! Thus indeed do We reward the good-doers. Verily, he was one of Our believing slaves. And We gave him the glad tidings of Isaac – a Prophet from the righteous. (37:99-112) The underlined portion of the passage clearly shows that glad tidings of the birth of Isaac (sws) were given to Abraham (sws) after he had already offered his first born son for sacrifice. In other words, the italicized verse: ‘So We gave him the glad tidings of a forbearing boy’, and all that has been narrated after this verse refer to Ishmael (sws). As far as the Bible is concerned, it, as your friend has pointed out, does mention a different story: In one of the most blatant examples of interpolation, the Jews have inserted the name of Isaac (sws) in place of Ishmael (sws) to cut off the relationship of Muhammad (sws) with Arabia and his great ancestor Abraham (sws). However, in spite of this tampering, the Bible contains passages which still point to Ishmael (sws) as the son offered for sacrifice1. The passage which mentions the incident of sacrifice in the Bible reads: Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, ‘Abraham!’ ‘Here I am,’ he replied. Then God said, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.’ Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. He said to his servants, ‘Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.’ Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, ‘Father?’ Yes, my son?’ Abraham replied. ‘The fire and wood are here,’ Isaac said, ‘but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?’ Abraham answered, ‘God Himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.’ And the two of them went on together. When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, ‘Abraham! Abraham!’ ‘Here I am’ ‘he replied. ‘Do not lay a hand on the boy,’ he said. ‘Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.’ Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place The Lord Will Provide. And to this day it is said, ‘On the mountain of the Lord it will be provided.’ The angel of the Lord called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, ‘I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.’ (Genesis 22:1-18) It follows from the underlined portion that Abraham (sws) was asked to sacrifice his only son which means that at that time he had no other son. The fact that this could only be Ishmael (sws) is evident from the following two passages of the Bible: Abraham was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael. (Genesis, 16:16) Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. (Genesis, 21:5) It is evident from these verses that Ishmael (sws) was fourteen years old at the birth of Isaac (sws), and must have been offered for sacrifice before Isaac (sws) was born because Abraham (sws) had been asked to sacrifice his only son; after Isaac’s birth of course the words ‘your only son’ would be totally inappropriate and against reality. In the light of this evidence, it is obvious that the word Isaac mentioned in the passage above (indicated by the underlined portion) was inserted in place of Ishmael (sws). *************************** Obviously this person couldn't recall Genesis 17 & Galatians 4 & 5 When I cited 1 corinthians 9:19-27. I never said that it allows one to lie. What I meant that some chistian deviants misuse those verses to make their acts seem right. I don't endorse such acts. You don't accept the Mohammedan trinity....what are your thoughts to John 1:14 ? How do you feel when you read the following verses in the Quran 29:50 & 10:31 alongwith 3:49 & 5:110? You asked of the meaning of the messiah. True..it does mean "the annointed one". But lets draw an Islamic line here. You first of all want me to go see a Rabbi to ask him the meaning of the word messiah. It's no surprise that he will downplay the meaning of the word messiah. After all does he accept the gospel unlike the Quran which makes it mandatory to believe in? Maybe I should ask him why I shouldn't accept Jesus either? Why shouldn't I ask him why do you say the Torah is NOT corrupted? You'd accept his reasoning on the word Messiah but not others to pertaining to different topics. Tell me does the Quran call David the Messiah? Nope, it mentions Messiah about 10 times for Al Maseeh Isa ibn Maryam. Why don't shias ask sunnis for the meaning of Maula or ul'il-amr? Because it doesn't befit their stance!! Obviously Jesus' being called al-maseeh must be a distinguishing attribute of Jesus. If one reads the narrations found in Al-Kafi and Bihar al-anwar so many times is Jesus given the title "Ruh-Allah", the Spirit of Allah. Let's see what the High Priests asked him....Matthew 26:63 , Mark 14:61 , Luke 22:70, John 19:7 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You are right in saying I am." The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." You might wanna say that the word messiah means "the annointed one". If thats what it entirely meant & hence what Jesus said, I don't think the High Priests would have sentenced him to crucifixion for Blasphemy. Which gospels do you think the Quran is talking about in 5:47 , 5:48 , 5:66 , 5:68? You might wanna mention that it's the Gospel of Barnabas. However know that it's earliest manuscripts are dated back to the 14th century and calls Mohammed the messiah and NOT "Ahmed" as does the Quran 61:6 Placid....You are right, we have to learn from the disciples. They all fled and left Jesus during his crucifixion. However later on they went and preached the gospel in the face of death until the end. Something must have happened because of which they're faith became so strong. You ask why people don't expose these terrorits. That's because terrorism has already done that. Terrorism doesn't defend ones beliefs. It exposes them!! Son of Placid you said "There is more to Jesus than any of us can realize". That is very true!! I believe he is the most successful man in history. Consider the no. of his followers given the fact that he never wrote a book and never waged any war. You also spoke about his death, true...read Quran 21:7 along with 19:33. It's funny how the Quran talks about John the Baptist in 19:15. This must be because of what he said in John 1:29-34. He put his faith in christ and is in accordance with what paul said in 1 corinthians 15:35-58 Mas-Salam - With prayers for everyone's success & well-being, Salman P.S. What are your thoughts about code 19 in the Quran? Remember I said there was an exception where an angel was called a rasool. In (19:19) he talks about the birth of a Righteous Son. Guess who and to whom?
×